> David, I appreciated your thorough and thoughtful reply. I think our
> differences about uniformitarian thinking in carbonate sedimentology and
> reef interpretation are matters of emphasis, not substance.
I am gratified by any sign of a "meeting of minds". I was intending to
respond at greater lenth than I am - but as I am out of the country for
most of the next 10 days, this brief note will at least acknowledge yours.
> Reijer Hooykaas in 1963 correctly differentiated the two aspects of
> uniformitarianism prior to Gould (1965) in his pathbreaking book Natural
> Law and Divine Miracle: A Historical-Critical Study of the Principle of
> Uniformity in Geology, Biology, and Theology. He properly identifies what
> Gould terms "methodological uniformitarianism" as actualism, which is
> what it should be called and usually is called. This term used to be used
> on continental Europe as a synonym for the Anglo-American
> uniformitarianism, but Hooykaas was the one who gave it a more restricted
> meaning, the "attempt to explain past changes in the earth's surface by
> reference to causes now in operation," or as I would put it, the
> "uniformity of natural process and law through space and time." We agree
> that this idea is an essential, fundamental part of modern science.
I nearly mentioned Hooykaas in my last post - but decided not to because
it was long enough! I think that Hooykaas has made an excellent
contribution to this debate - but few read him. I am an actualist in the
sense that I endorse methodological uniformitarianism in science.
> The point is that there can be, and are, different
> degrees of substantive uniformitarianism: a strict (and incorrect)
> Lyellian uniformitarianism and a more free (and correct) general
> uniformitarianism, and as I will argue below, geologists have almost all
> been the latter, not the former.
I think we are still going to differ over this!
> >There have been changes since Braithwaite
> >wrote his paper - and people have been much more alert to
> >shoehorning the data to fit orthodox depositional models.
>
> This statement depends on what you mean by "orthodox." Since science is
> fundamentally nonauthoritarian, any researcher with the evidence can
> propose any model, orthodox or unorthodox.
But the scientific community is NOT fundamentally non-authoritarian! In
my view there is an "establishment". There are all sorts of sociological
reasons for this. Surely you know researchers who have had the experience
having a hard time with reviewers (or PhD examiners!) because they were
exploring areas outside the norm. For example, see what Warren Carey has
to say in his book(s) on the Expanding Earth. See what Lorence Collins
has to say about his experiences in seeing hydrothermal processes
as a major issue in granite formation.
> I don't know of any "non-uniformitarian" models that are also scientific.
When I visited the Fossil Forests of Yellowstone, the story being told was
one of successive forests buried in situ. The roadside plaque said this.
The geological guides I was with said it. We examined the evidence at
Specimen Ridge. The roots were not in situ; there were root balls, but
the whole structure was allocthonous. I could see that; my guides could
not. Limited exposure allows us to live with the prejudices we bring to
the field. The work of Fritz has been outstanding; I would like to
comment Art Chadwick and Harold Coffin for their notable contributions.
This is an example of a scientific non-uniformitarian model.
> >SS: I know what they mean, and it doesn't bother me."
> >
> >DT: It does bother me. It makes me suspect that the user of "reef"
> >is carrying a load of (substantive) uniformitarian
> >interpretations which are unconsciously imposed on the data.
> >
> Wow, David, don't be so worried. Some uniformitarian interpretive baggage
> is okay. That's how geology is done.
The second of these three sentences mystifies me - I'm suggesting the
baggage is injurious to genuine science. You seem to be defending "normal
science" in the Kuhnian sense. I agree with your third sentence here.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.